| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ROPAR Consumer Complaint No.14 of 2021 Date of institution: 19.02.2021 Date of Decision: 03.10.2022 Harnek Singh son of Piara Singh, resident of Village Chaunta, PO Bajrur, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar ….Complainant Versus - Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.2463-64, 2nd Floor, Sector 22C, Chandigarh through its Manager
- Hi Tech Motors, Plot No.695, Phase I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, through its Manager.
……..Opposite Parties Complaint under Consumer Protection Act QUORUM SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT SMT. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER ARGUED BY Sh. Hemant Chaudhary, Adv. for complainant Sh. Amit Gupta, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.1 Complaint against OP2 stands dismissed as withdrawn. ORDER SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that he was filed the complaint No.157 of 09.12.2014 before District Consumer Commission, Rupnagar and the same was decided on 16.6.2015. The contests and facts mention in the above said complaint No.157/09.12.2014 on the whole may kindly be read as part and parcel of this complaint. OP No.1 has preferred an appeal before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh against order dated 16.6.2015 passed by this Hon’ble Court and the same was dismissed on 10.12.2016. After the dismissal of the appeal, complainant has moved the application for the enforcement of order dated 16.6.2015 passed by the District Commission as under:- “In view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the OP1 was not justified in repudiating the claim, accordingly, we set aside the repudiation of the claim made by it and dispose of the complaint against the OP No.1 with the direction to it to compare the engine number and chassis number of the accidental car with that of insured car and thereafter, settle the claim and inform complainant accordingly within a period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. The complainant has approached the opposite party No.1 but they refused to comply with the orders of this Commission. In execution application No.04/2019 Ms Vidhi Passi Manager of OP handed over a cheque to the tune of Rs.32,296/- to the complainant and complainant was shocked when he came to know that Rs.90,000/- was paid to the financer of the car. The complainant had suffer a huge loss of the car, it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant only received an amount of Rs.32,296/-. Both the OPs No.1 & 2 in convince with each other misuse the accident car of the complainant. OP No.1 taking the benefit as no amount was determined by this Commission while passing the order dated 16.6.2015. However, his car was not repaired/deliver by both OPs till date. In execution application No.04/2019 liberty of filing the complaint on fresh cause of action was given to the complainant as the complainant suffer a huge loss and OP No.1 has wrongly calculated the loss suffered by the complainant as the complainant was not satisfied with the claim decided by the OP No.1. The aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and it has caused mental as well as physical agony and also caused inconvenience to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:- - To pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of accident of the vehicle till its realization.
- To pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation
- To pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.
- Upon notice, the O.P. No.1 has filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that complainant has purchased the insurance policy No.3123118 covering with engine No.475TDT14XYP71805 and Chasis No.MAT607146CPP74399 w.e.f. 31.1.2014 to 30.01.2015 strictly subject to the terms and condition of the policy. On merits, it is stated that the complainant has intimated one own damage claim with regard to the said car. While processing the said claim, the claim file was closed as no Claim on account of the fact that the vehicle shown at the time of insurance was different from actual vehicle and aggrieved by the said decision the complainant has approached the DCDRF Ropar and SCDRC Punjab. The insurance company y as per the order of the court stand complied to the tune of Rs.1,22,296/- and nothing more is due from the insurance company and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The claim was intimated on 1.3.2014 by the workshop Hi Tech Motor, Plot No.695, Phase I Industrial Area, Chandigarh through their employee Priya mobile mobile and the screen shot of the company is attached. The contention of the complainant that the vehicle was told to be parked at Hi Tech Motors by Surveyor or Insurance Company is totally false and is liable to be dismissed. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on its part has prayed for the dismissal of complaint in total.
- The OP No.2 has filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the answering OP has been wrongly arrayed as a party since the earlier complaint preferred by the complainant being Consumer Complaint No.157 of 2014 on the same cause of action has been dismissed; that the present complaint has been preferred on the basis of the order dated 8.1.2021 passed by District Consumer Commission, Ropar, wherein liberty was given to the present complaint to file a fresh complaint with evidence of complete loss of car against the JD, if he desires so; that the present complaint is mis joinder of parties; that the present complaint against the present OP is in any case barred by limitation. On merits, it is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal the complaint.
- The learned counsel for the parties has tendered certain documents in the shape of evidence.
- We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.
- It is pertinent to mention here that the vide order 16.06.2015, this Commission has directed the Insurance Company that after comparing the chassis number and engine number of the vehicle in question of the complainant dispose of the claim of the complainant but the insurance company has not complied the order of this Commission and not pay the claim amount to the complainant as per insurance policy. It is important to mention here Insurance company has not paid the insurance amount to the complainant as per IDV Value and has paid the amount as per motor survey assessment report. Whereas, the OP is liable to pay the claim amount as per insurance policy. Even, the OPs paid Rs.1,22,296/- as per assessment report of the surveyor and out of this amount only Rs.32,296/- was paid to the complainant and Rs.90,000/-, directly paid to the financer, whereas all this money should have been given to the complainant by the insurance company. But the insurance company did not do so. The vehicle in question was fully damaged. The complainant is entitled the full claim as per IDV value.
- In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint. The OP No.1 is directed to pay the full claim amount of Rs.4,35,000/- after deducting Rs.1,22,296/- (already paid by the insurance company) and Rs.45,000/- (which was paid by the OP No.2 to the complainant after selling the damaged vehicle in question in the shape of scrap) along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. The OP No.1 is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- as compensation with Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses. The OP No.1 is further directed to comply with the said order within a period of 30 days from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be consigning to the Record Room.
Announced October 03, 2022 (Ranjit Singh) President (Ranvir Kaur) Member CC No. 14 of 2021 PRESENT: Sh. Hemant Chaudhary, Adv. for complainant Sh. Amit Gupta, Adv. for OP1 Complaint against OP2 stands dismissed as withdrawn Vide our separate detailed order of even date, the complaint stands allowed. The file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room. MEMBER PRESIDENT 03.10.2022 | |
